Woman crosses dual carriageway on foot, gets hit by car, gets €3.2M

Castlekeeper

knucklehead6 wrote: »

CT Forum is that way.

Is that the line they gave the troika?

kippy

Alias G wrote: »

I have already answered this. Please make your point.

Sorry I may have missed that.

Point is. Pedestrian made these decisions.

TheChizler

knucklehead6 wrote: »

It adds 300 metres. Far from a significant distance

That's highly subjective, when driving it's insignificant but walking not so much, its another 4-5 minutes with the first part in the opposite direction to the direct route. Crossing the road is a much more attractive option IMO.

TheChizler

the_syco wrote: »

She got a bus that specifically doesn't go through the town.

She got the 101x bus, which only serves that busstop once a day at 06:26

Sunrise would have been at about 06:19 on that day. So the sun would've been very low at the time that the woman thought it was a good idea to cross the road.

Someone mentioned that the driver was in the buslane; a few meters after the busstop, said lane is a "turn left" lane.

Since when does the sun rise in the north east?

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

That's highly subjective, when driving it's insignificant but walking not so much, its another 4-5 minutes with the first part in the opposite direction to the direct route. Crossing the road is a much more attractive option IMO.

It's 260 metres and the bridge is 75 metres from the bus stop. At a brisk walking pace (6 kph) it would take around 2.5 minutes extra.

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

Since when does the sun rise in the north east?

At that date it rises in the east-northeast (070 °, or about 2.15 on a clockface). In June it rises in the northeast (047 °, 1:30 on a clockface).

TheChizler

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

At that date it rises in the east-northeast (070 °, or about 2.15 on a clockface). In June it rises in the northeast (047 °, 1:30 on a clockface).

http://suncalc.net/#/53.4528,-6.2166,18/2018.04.17/06:26

Exactly and in that direction it would have been indirect and obscured by trees when the driver was in the position to spot her. Even even if the sun was a factor I can never understand how driving blind is used as an excuse, if the sun is in your eyes either fix your visor or slow down.

I'm not arguing that Jodie is without fault, she may not have crossed the road in a safe manner, I just can't fault her for choosing to cross the road in that spot.

TheChizler

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's 260 metres and the bridge is 75 metres from the bus stop. At a brisk walking pace (6 kph) it would take around 2.5 minutes extra.

I know which way I'd be going if the traffic allowed. Other people have said people are always crossing there so I'm not alone.

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

http://suncalc.net/#/53.4528,-6.2166,18/2018.04.17/06:26

Exactly and in that direction it would have been indirect and obscured by trees when the driver was in the position to spot her. Even even if the sun was a factor I can never understand how driving blind is used as an excuse, if the sun is in your eyes either fix your visor or slow down.

I'm not arguing that Jodie is without fault, she may not have crossed the road in a safe manner, I just can't fault her for choosing to cross the road in that spot.

A couple of hours after sunrise, if that's the time this occured given that she works in River Island, it would have been unobscured by the trees. I'm sure the driver could see the road ahead just fine but an idiot ran out from behind a hedge at the last second.

She crossed the the road in an unsafe and illegal manner. The fact that you commend her for choosing that spot just speaks volumes about you. A footbridge ahead but she chooses a spot from behind a hedge just as a car was arriving. FFS

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

I know which way I'd be going if the traffic allowed. Other people have said people are always crossing there so I'm not alone.

I've passed there many times, even on busy Saturday afternoons, and have never had the problem of some idiot crossing there. I know it doesn't prove much but all Streetview imagery, taken at two different times (2017 and 2019), shows nobody crossing or even about to cross.

TheChizler

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I've passed there many times, even on busy Saturday afternoons, and have never had the problem of some idiot crossing there. I know it doesn't prove much but all Streetview imagery, taken at two different times (2017 and 2019) shows nobody crossing or even about to cross.

Have you been there when a bus has dropped people off? People have said its relatively infrequent.

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

Have you been there when a bus has dropped people off? People have said its relatively infrequent.

A minute ago you said "people are always crossing". Which is it?

Anyway, it's good to see that Ms. Regazzoli seems to be doing fine and her injuries have cleared (if this photo was taken when it says).

TheChizler

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

She crossed the the road in an unsafe and illegal manner. The fact that you commend her for choosing that spot just speaks volumes about you. A footbridge ahead but she chooses a spot from behind a hedge just as a car was arriving. FFS

I never said I commended her, just that I understand her choice and probably would do the same if I was using that bus stop. She should of course have been careful crossing, but we have no way of knowing what happened, maybe she sprinted blind after hiding in the bush and the driver had no chance, maybe she was careful but the driver was speeding (in the bus lane before it turns into a turning lane) which threw off her ability to judge the situation, or maybe she crossed the first two lanes perfectly fine and the driver entered the bus lane illegally at this point and hit her. Who knows.

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

I never said I commended her, just that I understand her choice and probably would do the same if I was using that bus stop. She should of course have been careful crossing, but we have no way of knowing what happened, maybe she sprinted blind after hiding in the bush and the driver had no chance, maybe she was careful but the driver was speeding (in the bus lane before it turns into a turning lane) which threw off her ability to judge the situation, or maybe she crossed the first two lanes perfectly fine and the driver entered the bus lane illegally at this point and hit her. Who knows.

She ran across when a car was coming. She obviously didn't look. She's 100% responsible.

TheChizler

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

A minute ago you said "people are always crossing". Which is it?

Anyway, it's good to see that Ms. Regazzoli seems to be doing fine and her injuries have cleared (if this photo was taken when it says).

I was repeating what other people have said, I presume they mean common when the bus is there. The bridge would be more convenient for everyone else.

Agreed I hope she's doing well, though knowing the nature of brain injuries it's a long road to recovery, if ever.

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

Other people have said people are always crossing there so I'm not alone.

TheChizler wrote: »

Have you been there when a bus has dropped people off? People have said its relatively infrequent.

TheChizler wrote: »

I was repeating what other people have said, I presume they mean common when the bus is there. The bridge would be more convenient for everyone else.

I don't think you know what you're saying at this stage.

kippy

I don't quite get the "People will take the shortest route" and "Sure everyone does it" absolution of the pedestrian here.
People do tend to take a shorter route if it is available to them. That's a decision they take. They are not forced into it.
It happens on a regular basis, agreed.

Also, sure everyone does it, isn't an excuse for anything.



The insurance company of the driver have settled on behalf of the driver and while the driver may have held some percentage of the blame I'd like to know what percentage was atributed.

Gaoth Laidir

kippy wrote: »

I don't quite get the "People will take the shortest route" and "Sure everyone does it" absolution of the pedestrian here.
People do tend to take a shorter route if it is available to them. That's a decision they take. They are not forced into it.
It happens on a regular basis, agreed.

Also, sure everyone does it, isn't an excuse for anything.



The insurance company of the driver have settled on behalf of the driver and while the driver may have held some percentage of the blame I'd like to know what percentage was atributed.

Two-thirds was attributed to the driver. Fcuked up.

If there were no bridge there then there would be justification for crossing, but that bridge has always been there (well, since at least 1996, long before the Pavillions was built) and it is a perfectly safe and efficient crossing for those who don't have a deathwish.

runawaybishop

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Two-thirds was attributed to the driver. Fcuked up.

If there were no bridge there then there would be justification for crossing, but that bridge has always been there (well, since at least 1996, long before the Pavillions was built) and it is a perfectly safe and efficient crossing for those who don't have a deathwish.

For some reason the driver always seems to start with 100% of the responsibility and then it's moved based on the facts. I don't get that. Surely the person that ran in front of traffic should start at 100% responsibility? Unless she stopped in the middle of the road and the driver could clearly see her from a good distance away and chose to plow into her I don't see how the driver should be apportioned such a high level of responsibility.

jams100

Do we have the full details here for context? For example how much her medical expenses etc.?

3.2 million on the face of it seems an absolutely outlandish reward but maybe I'm missing something, are her injuries life threatening? I'm presuming given the high reward this isn't just a whiplash injury and she is in a wheelchair or something for years

Gaoth Laidir

jams100 wrote: »

Do we have the full details here for context? For example how much her medical expenses etc.?

3.2 million on the face of it seems an absolutely outlandish reward but maybe I'm missing something, are her injuries life threatening? I'm presuming given the high reward this isn't just a whiplash injury and she is in a wheelchair or something for years

Just have a look at her FB page and you'll see.

I don't get why she is getting any damages at all. The fact that she was a part-time model and was severely injured (though seems to be doing well now) should not come into the discussion at all. Whether Mother Teresa or some scumbag high on coke crosses the road in front of a car, both are equally culpable. Their background or the ability of the other part to pay should not come into it (key bit in italics).

jmreire

kippy wrote: »

I don't quite get the "People will take the shortest route" and "Sure everyone does it" absolution of the pedestrian here.
People do tend to take a shorter route if it is available to them. That's a decision they take. They are not forced into it.
It happens on a regular basis, agreed.

Also, sure everyone does it, isn't an excuse for anything.



The insurance company of the driver have settled on behalf of the driver and while the driver may have held some percentage of the blame I'd like to know what percentage was atributed.

And another interesting % would be the legal costs......are they calculated as a % of the award? or at a set rate? or a combination?

knucklehead6

While i agree that the 3.2 million is a huge amount of money to pay someone because of their stupidity and laziness, stalking the persons FB page is a little bit much.

I hate these types of cases. And there are always those who will take up the mantle of the Great Defender and Protector of Holy Pedestrians against ALL MANIACAL DRIVERS.

There was a case a couple of years ago, where some dope walked out onto the road and got herself knocked down. She was awarded 250K.
Doesn't seem like a lot in comparison to this case, but here's the kicker... She walked out at a red light

Gaoth Laidir

knucklehead6 wrote: »

While i agree that the 3.2 million is a huge amount of money to pay someone because of their stupidity and laziness, stalking the persons FB page is a little bit much.

I hate these types of cases. And there are always those who will take up the mantle of the Great Defender and Protector of Holy Pedestrians against ALL MANIACAL DRIVERS.

There was a case a couple of years ago, where some dope walked out onto the road and got herself knocked down. She was awarded 250K.
Doesn't seem like a lot in comparison to this case, but here's the kicker... She walked out at a red light

Stalking? She is using social media and has her profile and posts set to public. Anyone can see it.

I'm chosing to be offended by that defamatory accusation and I demand that you pay me....one MILLION dollars...

knucklehead6

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Stalking? She is using social media and has her profile and posts set to public. Anyone can see it.

I'm chosing to be offended by that defamatory accusation and I demand that you pay me....one MILLION dollars...

Not a problem, post up your BIC, IBAN, Date of birth, address and mothers maiden name and a few other details to be ironed out and i'll lodge it to your account as soon as is convenient

jmreire

knucklehead6 wrote: »

While i agree that the 3.2 million is a huge amount of money to pay someone because of their stupidity and laziness, stalking the persons FB page is a little bit much.

I hate these types of cases. And there are always those who will take up the mantle of the Great Defender and Protector of Holy Pedestrians against ALL MANIACAL DRIVERS.

There was a case a couple of years ago, where some dope walked out onto the road and got herself knocked down. She was awarded 250K.
Doesn't seem like a lot in comparison to this case, but here's the kicker... She walked out at a red light

The clue and the link is in the words " Insurable Case".............

knucklehead6

jmreire wrote: »

The clue and the link is in the words " Insurable Case".............

So you feel that just cos someone has insurance then they are up for being sued as a result of someone else's stupidity?

In both the cases i've referred to, the redlight crosser and the Dual Carriageway crosses made the decision to put themselves in harms way. The driver did not deliberately put the pedestrians in harms way

jmreire

knucklehead6 wrote: »

So you feel that just cos someone has insurance then they are up for being sued as a result of someone else's stupidity?

In both the cases i've referred to, the redlight crosser and the Dual Carriageway crosses made the decision to put themselves in harms way. The driver did not deliberately put the pedestrians in harms way

Thats not what I'm suggesting at all. I doubt very much that anyone is "up for being sued " in this Country , much less someone who to all intents and appearances feel that they are not to blame..The point I'm making is that if there's little or no possibility of a payout,,,there will not be a case.And in both cases you mention, the legal advice was to sue the insurance,,,despite the circumstances. Now, if the law was black and white, and stated clearly Footpaths for pedestrians, and roads for vehicles, these cases would not have been taken, because the chances of a win and payout would be slim.
I've lived and worked in Countrys where this is exactly the case. Step off the footpath and on to the public road, you are with your Guardian Angel.
But a more practical ( and true ) case come to mind... Child staying with parents in a hotel. scrapes his face lightly off the furniture. Parents claim damages off the hotel, and in due course ( despite making a full recovery) the child is awarded €40'000. It was an "insurable" case. Now different case, same child runnung around his own house, falls and scrapes himself...identical injurys, but no claim ???

the_syco

I'd wonder how much they driver will be charged for insurance for the next few years?

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Not a problem, post up your BIC, IBAN, Date of birth, address and mothers maiden name and a few other details to be ironed out and i'll lodge it to your account as soon as is convenient

Mother; Hamida al-Attas
Account No. CO-565,167.0
DoB; 10/March/1957
Address; Bilal Town, Abbottabad, Northern Ireland

Anything else?

jmreire

the_syco wrote: »

I'd wonder how much they driver will be charged for insurance for the next few years?


Mother; Hamida al-Attas
Account No. CO-565,167.0
DoB; 10/March/1957
Address; Bilal Town, Abbottabad, Northern Ireland

Anything else?

Always thought that Abbottabad was in Pakistan......but there you go, For the poor devils insurance renewal..even with a previous no claims bonus of 25 (or more) years, it will rise astronomically , but even so, the lions share will be paid by you , me and many more,,,,as usual.

knucklehead6

the_syco wrote: »

I'd wonder how much they driver will be charged for insurance for the next few years?


Mother; Hamida al-Attas
Account No. CO-565,167.0
DoB; 10/March/1957
Address; Bilal Town, Abbottabad, Northern Ireland

Anything else?

Considering we're both from the same town and i've met you i KNOW that is not your mothers name!!!

knucklehead6

jmreire wrote: »

Child staying with parents in a hotel. scrapes his face lightly off the furniture. Parents claim damages off the hotel, and in due course ( despite making a full recovery) the child is awarded €40'000. It was an "insurable" case. Now different case, same child runnung around his own house, falls and scrapes himself...identical injurys, but no claim ???

Fair enough, i picked you up incorrectly. My apologies.

The case you mention there annoys me too though. If my son was running around a hotel room and fell and hurt himself the last thing on my mind would be to sue, scars or not... And i speak from the point of view of someone who has a number of quite visible scars as a result of a 2.5 tonne gate squashing me!! And no, i didn't sue my employer, because it was an ACCIDENT, with no one to blame



I see our learned friends are circulating memos amongst themselves arguing against guidelines to reduce personal injury awards
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/senior-judges-argue-against-proposed-guidelines-on-personal-injury-awards-1.4486859

AndrewJRenko

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

A minute ago you said "people are always crossing". Which is it?

Anyway, it's good to see that Ms. Regazzoli seems to be doing fine and her injuries have cleared (if this photo was taken when it says).

Congratulations on your amazing ability to diagnose the presence or absence of medical conditions from a single photo. Presumably, the next time you need some medical advice yourself, you'll be sending your GP a single photo and taking whatever conclusions they come to based on the photo as gospel?

Markcheese

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I see our learned friends are circulating memos amongst themselves arguing against guidelines to reduce personal injury awards
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/senior-judges-argue-against-proposed-guidelines-on-personal-injury-awards-1.4486859

Don't threaten the compo industry , a lot of highly paid individuals have a lot at stake ..

tallaghtfornia

Just two experiences to share I witnessed yesterday and this morning

Lunch hour yesterday Audi and an Audi coupe racing each other the just after the roundabout a Woddies must have been tipping 120/120Km and an northern reg car trying to keep up with them.

This morning a guy just strolled out onto the road just before the Woddies foot bridge in front of my car with a pair of headphones on and his hands in his pockets I beeped at him and he just gave me the finger.

I just cant understand peoples stupidity in this country If I had of hit this guy that was my life ruined and also his.

My advice to anyone here to dose this is don't it this road is lethal.

Gaoth Laidir

tallaghtfornia wrote: »

Just two experiences to share I witnessed yesterday and this morning

Lunch hour yesterday Audi and an Audi coupe racing each other the just after the roundabout a Woddies must have been tipping 120/120Km and an northern reg car trying to keep up with them.

This morning a guy just strolled out onto the road just before the Woddies foot bridge in front of my car with a pair of headphones on and his hands in his pockets I beeped at him and he just gave me the finger.

I just cant understand peoples stupidity in this country If I had of hit this guy that was my life ruined and also his.

My advice to anyone here to dose this is don't it this road is lethal.

Careful that he didn't take your reg and report you. He may have chosen to be offended by your beep and could make a claim for shock and causing him to remove his hand from the warmth of his pocket. I'd contact your solicitor right now, just in case...

tallaghtfornia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Careful that he didn't take your reg and report you. He may have chosen to be offended by your beep and could make a claim for shock and causing him to remove his hand from the warmth of his pocket. I'd contact your solicitor right now, just in case...

AndrewJRenko

tallaghtfornia wrote: »

Just two experiences to share I witnessed yesterday and this morning

Lunch hour yesterday Audi and an Audi coupe racing each other the just after the roundabout a Woddies must have been tipping 120/120Km and an northern reg car trying to keep up with them.

This morning a guy just strolled out onto the road just before the Woddies foot bridge in front of my car with a pair of headphones on and his hands in his pockets I beeped at him and he just gave me the finger.

I just cant understand peoples stupidity in this country If I had of hit this guy that was my life ruined and also his.

My advice to anyone here to dose this is don't it this road is lethal.

Roads aren lethal. Drivers are lethal. They kill 2 or 3 people each week on the roads.

El Gato De Negocios

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I see our learned friends are circulating memos amongst themselves arguing against guidelines to reduce personal injury awards
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/senior-judges-argue-against-proposed-guidelines-on-personal-injury-awards-1.4486859

Just came in to post this.

Is anyone in the least bit surprised?

You remove bloated payouts for frivolous/false/exaggerated/unprovable injuries then you remove the bulk of the issues. Insurers have given assurances that if award levels reduce this will be reflected in all our premiums.

The only ones that do not want to see premiums reduced are the majority of the legal fraternity and the gougers that claim for everything.

There was another article in the times yesterday relating to a payout for a cut lip to a child who was two and got a bump in gob while staying in a hotel with his family.

A child who hurt his lip when he fell against a bed in a four star hotel room has settled his High Court action for €40,000.

Nicholas Fitzgerald has two scars around his lip area as a result of the accident in November 2016 at The d Hotel, Drogheda, Co Louth, where the child, then aged almost two, was on a family break with his parents.

His counsel, Luan O’Braonain SC, said the boy took a tumble in the hotel room and his face struck the sharp corner of the bed which had a wooden frame and no protection on the corners.

He said the boy hurt his lip and had to be taken to hospital and later had to have sutures inserted under anaesthetic. Counsel said liability was at issue in the case.

Now aged six, the child, of Begnets Villas, Dalkey, Co Dublin, had, through his mother Sharon Fitzgerald sued Niche Hotels Unlimited Company the owners and operators of the d Hotel, Marsh Road, Lagavooren, Drogheda, as a result of the accident about 9.30pm on November 1st, 2016.

It was claimed there was failure to ensure the family room was appropriately furnished for families with young children and to ensure the corners of the family room bedframe did not present an unnecessary or unreasonable danger to young children.

The room, it was claimed, was not suitable for use by families with young children.

The claims were denied and it was alleged there was contributory negligence on the part of the boy’s parents in allegedly failing to take any adequate care for their son’s safety.

It was claimed the parents failed to keep their child in an infant carrier while in the room and failed to keep him within their sight when he was moving around the room.

Mr Justice Kevin Cross examined the child’s scars and was told they are permanent scars.

Approving the “very good” settlement, the judge said the boy had made a very good recovery and he was sure he will put the incident behind him.

Link to article

On what fcuking planet should a toddler and his parents be paid €40,000 for doing what toddlers across the world are doing every hour of every day?

This case has been rumbling on for over 4 years so I can guarantee that the €40k compo is only the tip of the iceberg for what it will ultimately cost the insurer. Add on legal fees for the claimant, probably at least €20k, defence fees for the insurer, something similar, ancillary costs like investigation fees, handler fees etc. Probably going to cost the guts of €100k when all is said and done.

Even the case in the OP, its all about painting a sympathetic picture. Using terms like part-time model indicate that she had a burgeoning modeling career and could have been Americas next top model, cha-ching. She was apparently left homeless for a time after the incident, begs the question, where were her family / friends in all this but you cant ask those questions, she was homeless because the defendant had the audacity to drive their car that morning, cha-ching! As for the payout of €3.2m, you can add on an extra €1m at a minimum.

For cases like this, where the claimant is purely the author of their own misfortune, Id have no qualms with the person being provided what ever medical care they required following the accident but making someone a millionaire because of their own laziness and outright fcuking stupidity is as disgusting as it gets.

Gaoth Laidir

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Just came in to post this.

Is anyone in the least bit surprised?

You remove bloated payouts for frivolous/false/exaggerated/unprovable injuries then you remove the bulk of the issues. Insurers have given assurances that if award levels reduce this will be reflected in all our premiums.

The only ones that do not want to see premiums reduced are the majority of the legal fraternity and the gougers that claim for everything.

There was another article in the times yesterday relating to a payout for a cut lip to a child who was two and got a bump in gob while staying in a hotel with his family.



Link to article

On what fcuking planet should a toddler and his parents be paid €40,000 for doing what toddlers across the world are doing every hour of every day?

This case has been rumbling on for over 4 years so I can guarantee that the €40k compo is only the tip of the iceberg for what it will ultimately cost the insurer. Add on legal fees for the claimant, probably at least €20k, defence fees for the insurer, something similar, ancillary costs like investigation fees, handler fees etc. Probably going to cost the guts of €100k when all is said and done.

Even the case in the OP, its all about painting a sympathetic picture. Using terms like part-time model indicate that she had a burgeoning modeling career and could have been Americas next top model, cha-ching. She was apparently left homeless for a time after the incident, begs the question, where were her family / friends in all this but you cant ask those questions, she was homeless because the defendant had the audacity to drive their car that morning, cha-ching! As for the payout of €3.2m, you can add on an extra €1m at a minimum.

For cases like this, where the claimant is purely the author of their own misfortune, Id have no qualms with the person being provided what ever medical care they required following the accident but making someone a millionaire because of their own laziness and outright fcuking stupidity is as disgusting as it gets.

Bollox. I was in holiday in Madeira in 2007 and my son (almost 2) tripped and hit his head on the metal corner of a pull-out bed in the hotel room. Got a gash just above the eye. Was lucky not to lose it. Went to the local emergency doctor and was seen to immediately for the princely sum of just €5.

What's the statute of limitations, does anyone know? You reckon I could still claim for him? No, I wasn't paying attention to him at that moment and sure, it's my duty to look after him, but none of that seems to matter...

Gaoth Laidir

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Just came in to post this.

Is anyone in the least bit surprised?

You remove bloated payouts for frivolous/false/exaggerated/unprovable injuries then you remove the bulk of the issues. Insurers have given assurances that if award levels reduce this will be reflected in all our premiums.

The only ones that do not want to see premiums reduced are the majority of the legal fraternity and the gougers that claim for everything.

There was another article in the times yesterday relating to a payout for a cut lip to a child who was two and got a bump in gob while staying in a hotel with his family.

It was claimed there was failure to ensure the family room was appropriately furnished for families with young children and to ensure the corners of the family room bedframe did not present an unnecessary or unreasonable danger to young children.

Link to article

On what fcuking planet should a toddler and his parents be paid €40,000 for doing what toddlers across the world are doing every hour of every day?

This case has been rumbling on for over 4 years so I can guarantee that the €40k compo is only the tip of the iceberg for what it will ultimately cost the insurer. Add on legal fees for the claimant, probably at least €20k, defence fees for the insurer, something similar, ancillary costs like investigation fees, handler fees etc. Probably going to cost the guts of €100k when all is said and done.

Even the case in the OP, its all about painting a sympathetic picture. Using terms like part-time model indicate that she had a burgeoning modeling career and could have been Americas next top model, cha-ching. She was apparently left homeless for a time after the incident, begs the question, where were her family / friends in all this but you cant ask those questions, she was homeless because the defendant had the audacity to drive their car that morning, cha-ching! As for the payout of €3.2m, you can add on an extra €1m at a minimum.

For cases like this, where the claimant is purely the author of their own misfortune, Id have no qualms with the person being provided what ever medical care they required following the accident but making someone a millionaire because of their own laziness and outright fcuking stupidity is as disgusting as it gets.

Did the parents not first check for this type of thing when they entered the room? If it was so unsuitable I'm sure they were immediately on the blower to reception to complain and ask for a different room or some protection to be immediately installed. That's what any parent would do, isn't it?

This sort of shít really pisses me off.

El Gato De Negocios

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Bollox. I was in holiday in Madeira in 2007 and my son (almost 2) tripped and hit his head on the metal corner of a pull-out bed in the hotel room. Got a gash just above the eye. Was lucky not to lose it. Went to the local emergency doctor and was seen to immediately for the princely sum of just €5.

What's the statute of limitations, does anyone know? You reckon I could still claim for him? No, I wasn't paying attention to him at that moment and sure, it's my duty to look after him, but none of that seems to matter...

My now 4 year old was bitten on the foot by a pony in a petting zoo when he was 18 months. It didn't break the skin and it was entirely my fault as I had him sitting on the fence but he now has a terrible fear of horses and PTSD. The signs they had up advising that horses may bite were not big enough and didn't have neon flashing arrows on them so it's obviously not my fault and I he deserves reparations!!!!

knucklehead6

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

My now 4 year old was bitten on the foot by a pony in a petting zoo when he was 18 months. It didn't break the skin and it was entirely my fault as I had him sitting on the fence but he now has a terrible fear of horses and PTSD. The signs they had up advising that horses may bite were not big enough and didn't have neon flashing arrows on them so it's obviously not my fault and I he deserves reparations!!!!

My son has ginger hair. Who can i sue?

knucklehead6

knucklehead6 wrote: »

My son has ginger hair. Who can i sue?

On second thoughts i should probably be more concerned about being sued by him!

the_syco

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Did the parents not first check for this type of thing when they entered the room?

Depends on the parents, they may have looked for what could cause harm. There are a few families in Dublin that are often in the courts suing over things that caused them to be hurt.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I see our learned friends are circulating memos amongst themselves arguing against guidelines to reduce personal injury awards
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/senior-judges-argue-against-proposed-guidelines-on-personal-injury-awards-1.4486859

I misread that as memes. Was disappointed. TBH, if they stopped paying cash to whiplash victims, and only paid the hospitals directly, the cost to insurance companies would drop.

jams100 wrote: »

I'm presuming given the high reward this isn't just a whiplash injury and she is in a wheelchair or something for years

Nope. Able to walk around. Says that she still needs surgery, but seems the part-time model minimum wage worker at Pavilions Shopping Centre can walk around. The "part-time model" thing could have been her wearing clothes in the shop that she worked in, for all we know.

El Gato De Negocios

the_syco wrote: »

I misread that as memes. Was disappointed. TBH, if they stopped paying cash to whiplash victims, and only paid the hospitals directly, the cost to insurance companies would drop.

Research has indicated that somewhere in the region of 80 to 90% of people receiving pain management treatment stop doing so post settlement of a claim.

SeanW

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Research has indicated that somewhere in the region of 80 to 90% of people receiving pain management treatment stop doing so post settlement of a claim.

Haven't seen that research, but in this country, I wouldn't be surprised. When even sitting TDs chance their arm and get away with it, you know we're in trouble and events like the "tram surfing girl" getting over half a million etc become much easier to understand. It does seem that there's no end to the level of stupidity that can be made someone else's fault if there's a business or insurance policy to milk for the benefits of lawyers and idiots.

It was disheartening to read all the defenses of this settlement/award, either because they supports Ireland's "compo culture" in general or just have a blind spot when it comes to motorists and thinks that motorists in particular should be "fair game" for reckless morons and ambulance chasing lawyers. Unfortunately, it was only going to be a matter of time before those defenses degenerated into outright falsehoods. Like these:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Roads aren lethal. Drivers are lethal. They kill 2 or 3 people each week on the roads.

Firstly, the claim that road/street profile does not effect (whether positively or negatively) safety along that passage is not just a falsehood, but a dangerous one. It's a provable fact that well designed roads (designed to get people and goods from place to place quickly) and well designed streets (designed to capture value in a space) will have better safety records than routes that are unclear in their function or poorly designed.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/10/30/the-stroad
To claim otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme, a falsehood that could get people killed.
Secondly, the claim that "Irish drivers kill X people per week" is also misleading, because the causes of fatal accidents are mutli-variate. As we've seen with serious accidents, very often the motorist is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time while another road user does something insane.
The final misleading claim was by implication, the poster indirectly claimed that Ireland has a bad safety record when it comes to road fatalities. Again, the data and evidence directly contradicts this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Global data shows that risk associated with road usage are inherent and unavoidable in all countries, but that fatalities in this country are relatively rare. That suggests that most routes are reasonably well designed and that genuinely dangerous behaviour by Irish motorists is rare.

jmreire

SeanW wrote: »

Haven't seen that research, but in this country, I wouldn't be surprised. When even sitting TDs chance their arm and get away with it, you know we're in trouble and events like the "tram surfing girl" getting over half a million etc become much easier to understand. It does seem that there's no end to the level of stupidity that can be made someone else's fault if there's a business or insurance policy to milk for the benefits of lawyers and idiots.

It was disheartening to read all the defenses of this settlement/award, either because they supports Ireland's "compo culture" in general or just have a blind spot when it comes to motorists and thinks that motorists in particular should be "fair game" for reckless morons and ambulance chasing lawyers. Unfortunately, it was only going to be a matter of time before those defenses degenerated into outright falsehoods. Like these:

Firstly, the claim that road/street profile does not effect (whether positively or negatively) safety along that passage is not just a falsehood, but a dangerous one. It's a provable fact that well designed roads (designed to get people and goods from place to place quickly) and well designed streets (designed to capture value in a space) will have better safety records than routes that are unclear in their function or poorly designed.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/10/30/the-stroad
To claim otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme, a falsehood that could get people killed.
Secondly, the claim that "Irish drivers kill X people per week" is also misleading, because the causes of fatal accidents are mutli-variate. As we've seen with serious accidents, very often the motorist is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time while another road user does something insane.
The final misleading claim was by implication, the poster indirectly claimed that Ireland has a bad safety record when it comes to road fatalities. Again, the data and evidence directly contradicts this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Global data shows that risk associated with road usage are inherent and unavoidable in all countries, but that fatalities in this country are relatively rare. That suggests that most routes are reasonably well designed and that genuinely dangerous behaviour by Irish motorists is rare.

I'd agree with all of the above, but no matter how well road's / building's etc. are designed with safety in mind, it will not eliminate the compo scammer.....or the more than generous amounts awarded here in Ireland. Which is the crux of the matter, causing insurance costs to rise and businesses to close.

Mimon

knucklehead6 wrote: »

My son has ginger hair. Who can i sue?

The milkman? :pac:

Or ask the wife.

knucklehead6

Mimon wrote: »

The milkman? :pac:

Or ask the wife.

Hi Helen.